As you are on doubt aware, the use of spherical bearings is a pet peeve of mine. To this very moment I am unconvinced that these items meet either the spirit or the letter of the rules.

So, really, why do we accept these things legal for Improved Touring?

Spherical bearings as suspension bushings are something that has been generally - and, I think, grudgingly - accepted in IT for a while. I do not know who did it first, or whether it went through any kind of approval process, but I strongly suspect that this may be a result of an "acceptance" mindset where 'it hasn't been protested so it must be legal' or 'that guy is doing it, so it must be legal'. I've heard rumors that someone sent a letter or email to the then-SCCA Technical Manager Sven Pruett and got a thumbs-up for it (but have never seen it). Regardless, as we all know a letter/email interpretation/approval from Sven Pruett (or Jeremy Thoennes) does not carry the weight of legality, it is simply an opinion, one that can easily change with the person occupying the staff position. It certainly does not carry the weight of a GCR 13.9 Rules Interpretation. I further suspect that based on this acceptance/approval more and more folks have been taking it as gospel that it's legal.

It would surprise no one to find that I strongly disagree. Let's talk about the referenced rule. It states,

Bushing material, including that used to mount a suspension subframe to the chassis, is unrestricted.

Consider that in Improved Touring one cannot change anything unless specifically allowed, our standard IIDSYCYC ("if it doesn't say you can, you cannot".) Also consider that any part has multiple characteristics; these include primarily dimensional characteristics and material characteristics. This particular rule does not state that "bushings are unrestricted"; in point of fact, it specifically states that "Bushing material...is unrestricted". Given this, where does one find the supporting basis for changing the dimensional characteristics of suspension bushings? Where does one find the supporting basis for replacing solid bushings with spherical bearings?

So I ask again:why do we accept these things legal for Improved Touring? Just 'cause we want 'em? Not good enough.

It bothers me enough that I am planning on doing something about this in 2006. Because it is cheaper than a GCR 13.9 ($25 versus a $250 sunk cost), I am going to file a protest against a competitor - picked at random? - that is running spherical bushings in their suspension. I will file this protest with the hope that the competitor will lose and be forced to appeal to National for a final ruling. If my protest is denied, then I myself will file an appeal to National.

Note that new in the '06 GCR in 13.6 is the verbiage, "A non-compliant ruling will be published; a compliant ruling will not be published." I will accept the results of the appeal(s) as de facto and dejure evidence of the legality of the rule.

I sincerely hope to do this in a non-confrontational way by finding someone willing to work with me, but I sinerely doubt that will happen. However, if you're interested in working with me, please let me know.

In the meantime, feel free to debate the rule here. See if you can make a reasonable, cogent, logical argument - without referring back to "that's the way it's been" - as to why spherical bushings are allowed in Improved Touring. - GA